Here's is the reply that Ted kindly sent:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hello Geoff:
Thanks for your note. Yes, we are exceedingly busy with the approach of the
Lake Louise Alpine WC events, all of the Alpine WC events in AUT and of
course with our recent take-over of the Kitzbuhel contract now representing
ROLEX. The recent cancellation of the opening Soelden World Cup was the
only break in an otherwise nut-case month. The Updates are always a
challenge.
I'm copying a wide range of interested parties because the points you raise
are important and quite specific to CAN/USA.
611.3.5 is in there to respond to the observed reality. The FIS does not
homologate downstream software (despite many requests to do such a thing to
clean up the mistakes out there worldwide). I doubt if this is a concern of
yours since whatever issues that did exists with the TAG systems and Split
Second were solved years ago and you are wise to this trap. Not so for
everyone out there in the FIS world and thus the concern/remedy. There are
also some other pertinent concerns.
The FIS only homologates and looks at data from FIS races based on
homologated timing equipment and what comes out of the timer printers. What
happens downstream from the timers involved is the entire responsibility of
the ROC, and one would suppose, the software authors that host those
systems. Our FIS Timing Working Group is of the opinion that whatever
happens downstream of the timing systems is really none of our business and
we should not get involved in controlling the creative process. The FIS has
also recently struck a FIS Data Working Group and they may elect to police
such matters in the future if things continue to get out of hand. Not my
purview.
The current rules clarify this position and reinforce the need for
downstream systems to be in sync with what each homologated timing device
it may be connected to actually prints.
Things the FIS would like to avoid (and thus the appearance of this rule):
- Timer precision on the timer tapes that does not precisely match
the methodology used by downstream systems or devices. (Ex: Printer tapes
prints TOD in 1/1000ths, Software uses TOD in 1/10,000 - results often
different by .01 when calculated).
- Mistakes in calculations relative to what appears on homologated
timer printer tapes when compared to calculations in TOD produced by
downstream software. (Almost the same as above but perhaps the truncation
method is incorrect)
- The assumption by timing operators that downstream software super
cedes the necessity of always referring back to and checking time data
relative to the FIS homologated timers in use and based on what shows up on
the timer tapes.
- The omission by many ROCs to treat the homologated timer tapes as
the only correct source of recorded data. (Software memory or software
printer records are not acceptable evidence of what was produced by the
homologated timer.)
As to your list of devices, I would concur that your list is correct
relative to the ALGE and TAG systems you noted. I cannot comment on the
accuracy of the device characteristics from other manufacturers you show
there. I would strongly urge you however to contact ALGE and TAG Heuer
directly for a definitive statement of compliance.
I would further suggest that the USA agents for these devices (Absolute
Precision, Phoenix, or Reliable Racing) would be glad to supply you with
timers to test your compliance with their specific models without charge.
This is what I do in Canada for all software authors in all sports.
As for the FIS TD Updates that I conduct with my USA counterpart, topics of
discussion and instruction that touch on timing and results are many.
Thelma Hoessler, Allen Church and myself covered a wide rang of topics from
timing, reporting on the forms, noted errors from last season, live-timing
challenges (obvious mistakes that get posted), live-timing options (4 new
methods that have appeared in 06-07) and xml transmission to FIS and how to
check the outbound files. Nothing specific to Split Second or any other
author or timing manufacturer was mentioned in detail. Do you have any
specific concerns that I can address or refer to others?
A few race software authors from Canada traveled to the Update in Seattle,
and I see that some others will be in Ottawa next week. You are of course
welcome to enhance our meetings by attending and contributing. We also have
vendor tables available at a minimal charge (Paul Van Slyke can handle that
for you).
If I may offer some constructive advice:
Many of your software competitors allow for the use of stand-alone timing
systems operating in Net time to provide net-time-only data (bib # + run
time) to the downstream software. To our knowledge SS does not do this yet.
There is no TOD transfer nor downstream time calculation being done in this
case where net times are used from the homologated timer. These software
systems may also permit the valuable enhanced operation of many
intermediates, speed traps, Live-Timing and other features that a
stand-alone homologated timing device just does not deal with well - but
without the risk of using a PC as the only device that calculates the
run-times from TOD data. I believe that you have looked at noted problems
when 705, TIMY and 800x operators send TOD+Net to Split Second and have
corrected those problems.
In Canada we have seen a strong return to the use of stand-alone
homologated timing systems (8001's / 705s / 520s / TIMYs) and yet your
software does not seem to allow these systems to directly drive your
software on-line in net time mode (you only key off TOD and recalculate
what has already been provided). Can this be changed or added as a valuable
option? I have discussed this at length with Julie Lemieux at ACA since it
impacts the viability of how any Live Timing solutions may be approached in
Canada.
Reach me at any time with your comments by Email or phone and accept my
best regards for a successful new season.
Sincerely,
Ted Savage
Member, FIS Timing Working Group
FIS TD Commissioner for CANADA
President, Precision Timing International Inc.
Chief Technology Officer, Clarus Networks Inc.
514.606.8463 MTL mobile (CAN)
646.546.6451 NYC mobile (USA/EUR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted,
Hope all is well, and you're keeping busy enough...
I just wanted to check I'm interpreting the new FIS rule correctly:
"611.3.5 Computer software calculating net times must use the precision of
the time of day as used in the timing device."
It sounds straightforward but for a couple reasons there's potential for
confusion. Please let me know if the following are correct:
Timer Precision
ALGE TdC 8000/8001 1/10,000 (4 digits)
ALGE TIMY 1/10,000 (4 digits)
ALGE S4 1/1,000 (3 digits)
ALGE Comet 1/1,000 (3 digits)
ALGE S3 1/1,000 (3 digits)
ALGE TdC 4000 1/1,000 (3 digits)
TAG Heuer CP 705 1/1,000* (3 digits)
TAG Heuer CP 520 1/1,000* (3 digits)
TAG Heuer PTB 605 1/1,000* (3 digits)
TAG Heuer 650 Splitmaster 1/1,000 (3 digits)
TAG Heuer 502 1/1,000 (3 digits)
TAG Heuer 503 1/1,000 (3 digits)
TAG Heuer 505 1/1,000 (3 digits)
Summit Systems SRT 1000 1/1,000 (3 digits)
Microgate RaceTime 2 1/1,000 (3 digits)
Microgate REI2 1/1,000 (3 digits)
OMEGA TL5005 1/1,000 (3 digits)
* The TAG Heuer PTB 605 sends data to the computer in 1/1,000,000 (6
digits) (although I guess it's 1/500,000?). I had been using this full
precision but was told I should use 1/1,000 since that 's all that prints
directly on the device's printer, and so that's all that could be verified.
I'm hoping I have all these correct. I don't have all these timers and so I
thought it best to check with you. Please let me know of any changes I
should make.
Also, I noticed there were items on the FIS meeting agenda that may have
concerned me. Could you let me know anything I should be aware of regarding
those?
I look forward to your reply.
Regards,
Geoff Elder
